Share This article

Transistor announcements aren’t the sexiest occasions on the block, but Intel’s 22nm SoC unveil is important for a host of reasons. As process nodes shrink and more components move on-die, the characteristics of each new node have become particularly important. 22nm isn’t a new node for Intel; it debuted the technology last year with Ivy Bridge, but SoCs are more complex than CPU designs and create their own set of challenges.

Like its 22nm Ivy Bridge CPUs, the upcoming 22nm SoCs rely on Intel’s Tri-Gate implementation of FinFET technology. According to Intel engineer Mark Bohr, the 3D transistor structure is the principle reason why the company’s 22nm technology is as strong as it is. Other evidence backs up this point. Earlier this year, we brought you news that Nvidia was deeply concerned about manufacturing economics and the relative strength of TSMC’s sub-28nm planar roadmap. Morris Chang, TSMC’s CEO, has since admitted that such concerns are valid, given that performance and power are only expected to increase by 20-25% as compared to 28nm.

Intel, in contrast, is predicting record gains. The company claims that its 28nm SoC “employs high speed logic transistors, low standby power transistors, and high-voltage tolerant transistors in a single SoC chip to support a wide range of products, including premium smart phones, tablets, netbooks, embedded systems, wireless communications, and ASIC products.” The company reports enormous improvements in leakage currents and Intel plans to take full advantage of the improved performance.

You’ve probably seen the image above trotted out when Intel talks about process node improvements. In this case, it’s the length of the line that’s more improvement than its rightward shifts. The diagram shows leakage current dropping more quickly than clock speed. At 65nm, Intel’s transistor performance and minimum leakage levels dropped off more quickly, while minimum leakage was much higher.

At 65nm and a maximum input voltage of 1V, Intel’s SRAMs had a narrow operating range. 800MHz was the maximum effective frequency at that voltage — below 0.8v, the chip stopped working at any frequency. At 32nm (Medfield, Clover Trail), the company’s processors have considerable more latitude. 22nm pushes the envelope still further.

The challenge for both TSMC and GlobalFoundries is going to be how to match the performance of Intel’s 22nm technology with their own 28nm products. 20nm looks like it won’t be able to do so, which is why both companies are emphasizing their plans to move to 16nm/14nm ahead of schedule. There’s some variation on which node comes next; both GlobalFoundries and Intel are talking up 14nm; TSMC is implying a quick jump to 16nm.

I don’t want to say too much on how the three companies’ future processes might compare; tech papers at IEDM may shed more light on the particulars of each solution. What’s clear is that both GF and TSMC are going to try to accelerate FinFET development. GF’s tech papers imply that the company will deploy a hybrid 22nm-14nm process to make the jump more quickly.

Will it work? Unknown. TSMC and GlobalFoundries both have excellent engineers, but FinFET is a difficult technology to deploy. Ramping it up more quickly than expected while simultaneously bringing up a new process may be more difficult than either company anticipates. Given the advantages Intel claims for the technology, it might’ve made more sense to ramp FinFET on an established node. One of the most significant demonstrations of what Intel thinks it’s getting out of 22nm FinFET is the company’s decision to revise Atom for an out-of-order architecture. Intel has resisted the call to overhaul the in-order CPU; the current core at the heart of Medfield and Clover Trail offers nearly identical performance to the design that debuted in 2008.

22nm Atom should close the gap with existing ARM CPUs and give Intel a substantial advantage. Overall, the situation looks like Intel holds the cards until GF and TSMC manage to revise their roadmaps for the sub-20nm market.

Tagged In

Post a Comment

some_guy_said

I kinda wonder how much of intel’s lead on AMD is based on process/materials engineering rather than actual chip design engineering.

agooddecision

It’s a good question. At the moment the answer is that intel’s lead is mainly based on design superiority and only slightly due to process lead. I am talking about high end desktop/workstation cpu’s here.

You can easily verify this lead through under/overclocking. Even intel’s older Sandy Bridge 32nm is leaps and bounds ahead of AMD’s latest 32nm chips. Clock them up or down to the same frequency and you aren’t exactly comparing apples to apples, but given the high level architecture similarities you aren’t far off it either.

Heck even if you give AMD’s FX primo chip a 50% clock speed boost it still struggles to keep up with core i7 whatever-stupid-number-system. This is a clear design win that a process shrink can’t rectify.

I would love to see AMD back in the game but it won’t happen until they drop the Piledriver/Excavator design or radically redesign it. No change in process node is going to give them the 50%+ boost they would need simply to catch up with intel.

It’s a shame. Keeping AMD in the game is good for consumers.

some_guy_said

AMD’s current generation of (Pile Driver) chips – is competitive against Intel’s Sandy Bridge. the FX8350 is not a bad chip at all, outpacing (Ivy Bridge) intel i5s in many ways and even competitive against the i7s in a few ways.

So, the design is half a cycle behind – Because Bulldozer was horrible.

We know that bulldozer was an ineffective design architecture. We also know that Ivy Bridge (And possibly SB to an extent as well) has other process/material benefits beyond just node size – Such as Trigate interconnects.

So the process/materials issue is behind both in feature size, as well other architectural innovations.

So now that you make me think about it, I would say it is 1/3 design, and 2/3rd process/materials engineering.

Mario

Do you think if intel was to build the bulldozer chips with their own technology the AMD chip would be faster than they are at present. As I read piledriver has small improvements in the manufacturing quality and small adjustments in the design and you get a chip 10-15% faster on average.

Maventwo

But have Intel Medfield Atom SoC similar power efficiency controllers like ARM BIG.Little-concept?
Have intel spoken out anything about this in their talk about FiNFet SoC Medfield Atom?

Joel Hruska

Intel leads the world in process engineering and manufacturing. GF and TSMC are both trying to make an out-of-band leap to 14/16nm and FinFET for precisely that reason.

That doesn’t mean TSMC and GF are bad foundries. I don’t want to leave that impression. They’re both incredibly capable companies, but Intel’s long-term bets regarding the importance of doing its own design work are really paying off now.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.